Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a discussion list post "Re: Scientific American Article on Educational Research and Evaluation" [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT: EvalTalk's David Colton wrote at <http://bit.ly/1vuEiDu> (my inserts at ". . . . . . .[[insert]] . . . . . . . . . "
"A decade ago, the 'American Evaluation Association' . . . . . [[<http://bit.ly/1s1m5Mb>]]. . . . issued a position paper . . . . . .[[(AEA, 2003) at <http://bit.ly/1tgrYsI>, highly critical of ]]. . . . . . . . the U.S. Dept. of Education's (USDE's) decision to award research grants based on methodology, with experimental and quasi experimental designs given funding prior over other approaches . . . . . . .[["experimental" is RCT enthusiasts' code for methodology utilizing "Randomized Control Trails" (RCTs)]]. . . . So I was very interested in an article in this month's 'Scientific American' which describes the results of this process ten years out: 'The Science of Learning' . . . . . . .[[Kantrowitz (2014), re-titled in the online version "Scientists Bring New Rigor to Education Research" and online at <http://bit.ly/1v23502>]]. . . . . . . . ."